The argument "I'm not really stealing because I wouldn't have boughtit anyway" is interesting, because it's the same argument thatsoftware and music pirates use to defend themselves.

The recent hubub over the .MP3 audio format is a rehashing of thesame argument. It doesn't matter what the medium is: Books, audio,software, etc... they're all copyrighted works, and unauthorizedduplication is piracy. The only time duplication is legal is when youmake a copy for your own personal use. For example, making a cassettecopy of a record album so you can listen to it in your car. Or turningyour CD's into MP3's so you can listen to them on your new Rio player.The line from personal use to piracy is crossed when you own a duplicateof something you didn't purchase from the publisher yourself.

In the case of the school making copies of textbooks, I'd bet that it's still piracy, and the textbook publishers would be unhappy. In the caseof the photocopy of Restaurant, it's definitely piracy if the book doesn'tbelong to the person making the copy. What I don't understand is whysomeone thinks that their time spent photocopying a book is somehownot valuable. I'd rather spend five bucks on a paperback than waste myprecious time babysitting a cranky photocopier.

(Of course, Douglas' works are best read in hardback form. I have awonderfully-bound gold-leafed anthology of his works that's one of myprized posessions.)

The interesting part is how the pirates attempt to rationalize piracy withthat silly argument:

The publishers say: "Every single instance of piracy is lost revenue.By those figures, our industry loses billions of dollars each year topirates."

The pirates say: "But we wouldn't have bought the product to beginwith. So you're really not losing any money, but you're still gainingexposure."

As with all two-sided stories, the truth actually lies somewhere inthe middle. In the absence of a pirated copy, some folks wouldmake the purchase. Others would not. No one knows for sure howmany.